ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057865
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Frank O'Connell | Watergrasshill Community Association |
Representatives | Appeared In Person | Paul Sharkey, Chairman |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00069364-014 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00069364-018 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00070475-001 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00070475-002 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00070475-003 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00070475-004 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00070475-011 | 18/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 7 of the Terms of Employment ( Information) Act 1994 , Regulation 10 of the Transfer of Undertaking Regulation , 2003 and Section of the Sick Leave Act , 2022 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints .
The Complainant withdrew a number of claims at hearing.
Background:
On 18 February 2025, the Complainant, Lay Litigant and Caretaker submitted several complaints against the Respondent in this case and Glanmire Area Project CLG, ADJ 57863, the Respondent in the conjoined case. The Complainant outlined that he had been employed as Caretaker at Watergrasshill Community Centre from 15 November 2014 to his termination date of 17 October 2024. He earned €295.50 in respect of a 19.5 hr. week. There were some ambiguities in the complaint form, such as the denial of occurrence of Transfer of Undertakings. The Complainant also named his employer as Glanmire Area Project CLG and included a signed contract naming that entity as his employer. He also exhibited a letter of concern from his Solicitor Michael O’ Dowd from October 2024 alongside some recent medical certificates to explain his absence. The complaint form was shared with the Respondent on 8 April 2025. This prompted a response from Ms. Grace Healy dated 23 April 2025:
I refer to your correspondence dated 09 April 2025 in relation to employment claims alleged by Frank O'Connell of XXX, Co. Cork I hold the position of Chairperson of the Hall Committee within Watergrasshill Community Association and have been instructed to respond to you on its behalf. Having reviewed our employment file and records going back five years, I confirm that no person by the name of Frank O'Connell is or has ever been employed by Watergrasshill Community Association over the past five years. Please investigate and confirm that this claim has been served to us by mistake and that no further action needs to be taken by us in relation thereto. I await hearing from you Thank you for dealing with same While this was shared with the Complainant, he did not respond. The case went to hearing, where it was necessary to commence the case on the Preliminary Issue of whether Watergrasshill Community Association was the Complainants actual employer. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Issues, I requested the Complainant provide a copy of the Community Employment Scheme, inclusive of page 62. He had refused to exhibit pay slips which may have aided my comprehension of this employment. In light of the disputed employment status, I requested the Respondent outline a submission in respect of employer status. Both Mr. OConnell and Mr. Sharkey availed of the oath to accompany their evidence at hearing. The Complainant attended the hearing in the company of three support people, family, and friends. Mr. Sharkey was accompanied by Ms. Grace Healy, Hall Committee, who left the hearing at 11.45 hrs. I received the requested CE Manual, albeit dated May 2025, which post dated the circumstances of this case. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant outlined that he had commenced work as a Caretaker in a community employment scheme on 15 November 2014 until his employment ended on 17 October 2024. He received a weekly payment of €259.50 in respect of 19.5 hours worked. “I started employment on 12 November 2014 CE scheme with Glanmire Area Project placed in Watergrasshill Community Centre. Ms A was Supervisor from Glanmire Area Project “ The Complainant did not particularise his complaints but submitted a narrative where he described a period of continuous employment through the CE scheme, where he had been based in Watergrasshill Hall. He had also worked in a neighbouring hall as a favour to a former director. He had been provided with annual contracts as Caretaker. The Complainant outlined details where he had put down roots at the Community Hall and had served the community well. He had difficulty with recent changes at the business, where a lady was employed to clean 4 hrs per week for the same pay as he received, thus fragmenting his work pattern in 2023. The Director, whom he had known for many years stood down in September 2024. Historically, he had agreed to do 3.5 hrs cleaning in a separate community facility in deference to this Director. This was additional to his own work. Since that time, he had maintained that he had not forged a comparative connection with the new Community Board and had been misunderstood and misrepresented at the community facility. He outlined that his suggestions were ignored and he had been cast as a troublemaker, which he did not deserve. Issues of anti-social behaviour left unchecked, and he was not able to agree to the Watergrasshills suggestions to manage this and had entered a conflict resolution process with his Supervisor, Angela Murphy from the Glanmire Project. The situation came to a head through sick leave, then a consideration of a proposal to re-deploy from Watergrasshill to Riverstown to the point where he was directed not to enter the Watergrasshill facility. He took great exception to this in light of his leading role at the community hall for 10 years .In preparation for hearing he had canvassed a dossier of complimentary testimonials for his work. The complaint form had two different hand writings incorporated within the narrative. The Complainant came to hearing adopting a firm believe that the Respondent named was his employer. He carried a deep sense of unease on the impact of recent societal and cultural changes on the use of the hall. He maintained that he was permanently employed. The Complainant declared that he had been unfairly treated in his work and caste aside through dismissal. He worked with me on the composition of the WRC Complaint form However, a frustration and an exasperation focussed wholly on how he had been treated to the point where he was unable to particularise the claims he had made. I was disappointed. For me, all the ticks on the complaint form stood for marks of anger and frustration directed towards the community association and he could not move past this frustration to seek a remedy. He just wanted to be left alone to work in Watergrass hill hall and neighbouring centre. He had agreed to transfer out but indicated he wished to remain. I had requested the complainant compile a particularised submission prehearing. I received a narrative, without the benefit of supporting documentation. Preliminary Issue on Who is the employer in this case.? Evidence of the Complainant: The Complainant submitted that by operation of the CE Manual May 2025 that Watergrasshill, as his sponsor was his employer, a fact he said was endorsed by Dept of Social Protection. He did not submit supporting documentation for this viewpoint. I was left to consider the contracts of employment he had submitted to the WRC, which prompted a contrary viewpoint. He proceeded to give a context and background for his employment, starting at page 5 of the manual. In general, with effect from 3rd July 2017 all CE placements for entrants aged between 21 and 55 years will be for one year. However, if a CE participant is working towards a major award, their time can be extended up to an additional 2 years to complete this award. No extension will be given beyond 3 years (4 years for those on a disability-linked social welfare payment). Those aged 55 years and over can remain on CE for 3 consecutive years. Those aged 60 years and over can remain on CE up to State pension age, subject satisfactory performance on the scheme and annual approval by the Department. Participation on CE in the 7 years previous to the current year will not be counted in the context of the overall limit of 6 years in a lifetime (7 years for those in receipt of a disability linked social welfare payment). He commenced under the supervision of Mr S, who had previously been chair of the Community Association. He had told him there was a “job going in the hall “He also covered cleaning in a disused church on an extracurricular basis. He confirmed that he was a participant on a funded programme and paid by Glanmire. He contended that his supervisor, Ms Murphy was also an employee of Watergrasshill Community Association. He referred to page 62 of the CE Manual, (not available at hearing) which proved that the Legal Employer is the Supervisor. Mr S had told him that sick leave was not allowed but he had availed of sick leave in October 2024. He told the hearing that he had lost his job and had applied for Job seekers benefit. Mr OConnell submitted that he had a verbal contract of indefinite duration with Watergrass hill Community Association. In cross examination, Mr OConnell told Mr Sharkey that Mr S had not issued him with a contract of employment. His pay slips come from DSP, and he had been refused pay slips at the hall. He was never subject to a review of his position. He knew there was a 7-member grouping in Glanmire but was unclear as to who ran his resolution meeting. The Complainant differentiated between the fixed term contract he signed with Glan mire and the indefinite duration contract which he drew from Watergrass hill.
Ms Angela Murphy clarified that she was a CE Supervisor and not an employee of Watergrasshill Community Association. The Complainant was unable to help me in my questioning of his belief in who directed and controlled him in his work? CA-00070475 -001 Terms of Employment (Information Act)
CA-00070475 -002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Notification of Change CA-00070475 -003 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Core Terms CA-00070475 -004 Terms of Employment (Information Act) request for predictable working CA-00070475-005 Unfair Dismissal 17 October 2024 (withdrawn at hearing) CA-00070475-008 Discrimination on Gender grounds (withdrawn at hearing)
CA-00070475-009 Discriminatory Dismissal. (Deemed withdrawn on 17 June 2025) CA-00070475-010 Victimisation CA-00070475-011 Penalisation under Sick leave Act. CA-00070475-012 Statutory minimum notice (withdrawn at hearing)
CA-00070475-13 Rights during notice period (withdrawn at hearing)
CA-00070475-14 Treated less favourably under Fixed Term Act 2003 (withdrawn at hearing)
CA-00070475-15 Failed to offer a written statement setting out objective grounds justifying renewal of fixed term contract. (withdrawn at hearing) CA-00070475-16 probation in contravention of Fixed Term Act, 2003 (withdrawn at hearing)
CA-00069364-14 Transferee did not ensure terms and conditions transferred under TUPE Regulations. The Complainant denied he was subject to a Transfer under TUPE Regulations. CA-00069364-19 Transferor did not advise me under TUPE Regulations The Complainant denied he was subject to a Transfer under TUPE Regulations.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent operates a Community Association, which has hosted the Complainant in placement, but not in employment. The Respondent relied on their 23 April 2025 declaration, when they submitted that they had never employed the Complainant, a CE worker. Mr Sharkey came to hearing and distinguished the hosting of the complainant in placement as opposed to a direct employer. He gave evidence that the Sponsor/ Employer in this case is Glanmire Area Project CLG as reflected in the Complainants signed contracts of employment. Watergrasshill Community Association of which he held the Chairman role was not an employer. It had emerged from the Muintir na Tíre Community Organisation and Tidy Towns. He outlined the vital role of CE Manual, issued by DSP to Supervisory bodies locally. This confirmed that the Glanmire entity was the true Sponsor / employer. Watergrasshill Association hosted the complainant and there had been a recent breakdown in communications with him. Mr Sharkey was asked if he wished to make a supplementary submission on employment to match what had been received by the Complainant. He chose not to do this. Instead, he furnished the 2025 manual in February 2026. This did not prompt commentary from the complainant at that time.
CA-00070475 -001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) CA-00070475 -002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Notification of Change CA-00070475 -003 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Core Terms CA-00070475 -004 Terms of Employment (Information Act) request for predictable working CA-00070475-010 Victimisation CA-00070475-011 Penalisation under Sick leave Act.
CA-00069364-14 Transferee did not ensure terms and conditions transferred under TUPE Regulations CA-00069364-19 Transferor did not advise under TUPE Regulations |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have been requested to reach a Decision in each of these complaints submitted to the WRC on 18 February 2025. In reaching my Decision, I have had regard for the written, oral submissions alongside evidence adduced at hearing. The latter-day submission of the CE Manual was useful as an information tool. I found a certain frailty in the Complainant as he presented for hearing. I had cause to check his hearing capacity as he explained that he had some recent hearing impairment. I am satisfied that the Complainant heard and understood the hearing which occurred on 19 December last. It is regrettable that he chose to send intermittent correspondence to the WRC rather than a unitary submission prehearing. It seemed to me that this approach fortified his belief he was correct in his analysis of the case and prompted a frustrated and angry response when the Respondent chose to defend the claim. It would have been more preferable and much fairer for the complainant to adhere to the WRC guidelines for Lay Litigants in formulating a unitary written submission rather than random submissions. The Respondent came to hearing with an equally strong resolve that they were not and had never been the Complainants employer. Regrettably, they resisted the invitation to compile a written submission in advance of the hearing outside of the 23 April 2025 Declaration. The Respondent came to hearing and denied employment status and expected to be heard immediately on that pronouncement. The Respondent demonstrated a clear animus against the complainant and the climate of the hearing was tense in the presence of the second respondent, Glanmire Area Project CLG. I appreciate that the complainants submitted claims on TUPE necessitated the presence of both entities, but the complainant clearly struggled in that zone. It may have been a more productive use of time for both parties in the conjoined case to have collaborated in a written submission as the Complainant was not persuaded by the Respondent evidence yet did not engage in a cross examination. It was clear to me that he was not fully au fait with the complaints he had lodged with the WRC and being unrepresented was an additional challenge against that complexity. I appreciate that the complainant had three support people in attendance. However, it is my opinion he would have benefitted from the objectivity of representation. I am mindful of an Employment Tribunal Ruling (UK) on an application for a type of costs order following the completion of an Employment Tribunal hearing, dated 19 February 2025. This was a case, where the complainant’s daughter, herself a Solicitor represented her mother at hearing. Claimant: Respondent: Ms C Harvey: The Secretary of State for Justice Case no 1600873/2022 Employment Judge, TV Ryan. I note that the documentation relied upon by the parties was voluminous. Disclosure was long and complicated, as was the preparation of documentation. The Claimant sought to rely on a considerable amount of documentation and prepared extensive documents some of which embedded other documents as noted by the Respondent in its submissions. I see that the hearing bundle comprised 672 pages and other documents were cross referenced. There is a considerable amount of established authority on the meaning of the terms “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably” in relation to acts or omissions by a party to litigation. At all times I am required to have in mind the overriding objective of the Rules, and to act in the interests of justice. 13. I also wish to emphasise that I have considerable sympathy for any litigant in person involved in such complicated litigation, especially facing professionally represented opponents. Litigation is difficult; it is labour intensive. It is difficult and labour intensive for legal representatives as well, but they may be used to it, and they are at least familiar with the Tribunal's requirements and what will be required by both parties at a hearing if it is to be a fair hearing. For the uninitiated litigation must seem like an opaque barrier to having one’s claims, complaints, and grievances aired and considered. It may be felt at the system is not ideal, however it is the best that we have got. The parties and the Tribunal have to deal not only with the complexity of the law, the rigours of the Rules, but also human nature and the fact that unplanned and unforeseen circumstances may arise that hinder smooth preparation. Judge Ryan did not grant the order of costs but set out a keen observation of the challenges of Litigation, worthy of reflection by both parties in this case. Neither Party brought the CE Manual or any extract to hearing. Once more, had I had possession of this manual, I may have been able to work more strategically on employment status. Being denied pay slips was also a singularly unhelpful act. For my part, I could identify a strained atmosphere at hearing, sadly sparked by accusatory statements from both parties. I have a responsibility to decide who is the employer in this conjoined case as a Preliminary Issue? On 23 December 2025, five days post hearing, I sent this letter to both parties. I write in follow up to the hearing in this case which took place last Friday, December 19, 2025. What is at immediate issue is whether Watergrasshill Community Association can be identified as your employer? You have given evidence on this Preliminary Issue. Mr Paul Sharkey has also given evidence on this Preliminary issue. You have requested that I take account of page 62 of the May 2025 CE Manual in support of your contention. This document has now been submitted by your declared employers Glanmire Area Project CLG with your permission, and it now falls on both you and Mr Sharkey to file separate comments on the applicability of this manual to the arguments on correctly identifying the employer. I await your response. . In due course, as I explained at hearing, I will issue a Preliminary decision in this case. If it is in favour of your arguments, I will invite both parties back to hear the remainder of the complaints which remain live. If it is in favour of the Respondent arguments, I will issue a decision and that will conclude my involvement in this case. As I explained, both Parties hold an opportunity to appeal my decision to the Labour Court. As I await both party’s responses, I must remind you that there are no further documents or correspondence or commentary required outside of what I have specifically requested i.e. commentary on the CE Manual. I would be grateful if you could adhere to this request, please as uncanvassed documents will be returned to sender. I will forward a copy of this letter for Mr Sharkey’s attention and file. Yours sincerely, Patsy Doyle, Adjudicator While I received the Manual, first from Ms Murphy and latterly from Mr Sharkey, neither party made any supplementary submissions. I have reflected on Ms Murphys declarations on employment. CA-00070475 -001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) The Complainant submitted he had not received a statement in writing of his terms of employment. CA-00070475 -002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Notification of Change The Complainant submitted that he had not been informed of his relocation to Riverstown in accordance with the provisions of the Act. CA-00070475 -003 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Core Terms The Complainant did not receive core terms of employment. CA-00070475 -004 Terms of Employment (Information Act) request for predictable working The complainant submitted that he had not received a response to his written request. CA-00070475-010 Victimisation The Complainant did not particularise this claim.
CA-00070475-011 Penalisation under Sick leave Act. The Complainant did not particularise this claim. CA-00069364-14 Transferee did not ensure terms and conditions transferred under TUPE Regulations The Complainant did not advance any evidence of TUPE having occurred. CA-00069364-19 Transferor did not advise me under TUPE Regulations The Complainant did not advance any evidence of TUPE having occurred. Page 62 of the May 2025 Community Employment handbook reflects the following. 3.5 Responsibilities of the Sponsor The Sponsor organisation is the legal employer of the CE Supervisor and the participants. As the employer, the Sponsor should be fully aware of all relevant legislation and be committed to fully implementing its spirit and letter at all times (see www.enterprise.gov.ie). All positions must be open to all, and the project should have a written equal opportunities policy. 3.5.1 Code of Practice As part of the Induction process, new participants to the project must be made aware of policies and procedures (See www.workplacerelations.ie).to include the following - Grievances - Discipline - Sexual Harassment (see Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work) The Complainant has requested that I review a very A typical type of employment, the CE Scheme. This Programme was born from a bid to prepare candidates for a return to the job market by training and development in a supportive community setting. It is an altruistic model of empowerment and restoration. I found so much detail in the CE Scheme Manual of 2025 which showcases the Sponsor as an Employer. I have included these extracts below. • The Sponsor consists of at least 7 members, independent of each other (this is required for the implementation of good corporate governance) (see Section 1.3 for specific roles): • The Sponsor is legally incorporated as either: 1. A Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) not having a share capital under the Companies Acts 2014, as amended by the Companies (Accounting) Act 2017 or CE Procedures Manual V1 May 2025 9 2. A co-operative or will incorporate as such if successful in the application and remain incorporated for the duration of the project and has the endorsement or support of a defined community, which can be geographic or interest based. • The Sponsor does not exist to benefit the Sponsor members or immediate relatives in a substantive and material manner. Where the DSP Officer is satisfied on these counts, he/she will give the potential Sponsor the “Community Employment Sponsor Application Pack.” |
The decision on the suitability of a CE applicant for a CE place lies with the CE Sponsor, as the employer. The results of vetting form an essential part of the recruitment decision.
When applicants are appointed, as the employer, the Sponsor is fully responsible for all aspects concerning the management and welfare of participants. An employment contract and description of work tasks must be drawn up between the Sponsor and each participant and signed by both parties. It is recommended that such contracts reflect that the position is subject to continued funding from the DSP for the project. The written employment contract between the Sponsor and their employee should state that in the event of funding for the Project ceasing, it alone shall be grounds for terminating the contract of employment. The Sponsor will agree to release each participant to participate in any training/development that has been identified and approved in the participants ILP.
This culminates on page 62 Declaration:
3.5 Responsibilities of the Sponsor the Sponsor organisation is the legal employer of the CE Supervisor and the participants. As the employer, the Sponsor should be fully aware of all relevant legislation and be committed to fully implementing its spirit and letter at all times (see www.enterprise.gov.ie). All positions must be open to all, and the project should have a written equal opportunities policy.
This reflected in the contracts of employment submitted by the Complainant himself.
At first glance, the contract seems to place the complainant as an employee of Watergrashill. If I were to apply the contra proferentum rule on ambiguity, I could arguably interpret the phrase.
Sponsor Organisation: Watergrasshill
against the Drafter, Glanmire Area Project CLG
However, on closer examination:
I note the complainant signed an acceptance of supervision Glanmire. It named the complainant and Glanmire Arae Project CLG as “the parties “Dual reportage of sick leave to sponsor and supervisor. Annual leave places Glanmire as the employer. Garda Vetting is linked to Glanmire. Health and Safety statement likewise . Protective clothing owned by Glanmire. Employment procedures headlined as Glanmire up to including Disciplinary and Termination.
It closes with:
I have read, understand, and accept in full the terms and conditions of my employment contract with Glanmire area Project CLG as set out in this document.
Mr OConnell and Ms Murphy, on behalf of Glanmire signed this document on 8 October 2024.
I find this contract binds the complainant to employment at Glanmire Area Project CLG as I accept Mr Sharkeys evidence, when he said Watergrasshill Community Association was not yet equipped to satisfy the criteria for sponsorship.
That ambiguous contractual statement on sponsorship organisation, if present in other participant contracts may need to be reviewed. I write this as a concerned obiter in the case.
Taking all the evidence and submissions into account, the complainant is mistaken in his viewpoint that he is employed by Watergrasshill Community Association as it is not the sponsor.
I wish to record that part of the Complainants fastidious insistence of being employed by Watergrashill was informed by his static presence in both halls over the previous 10 years, a time frame not readily captured in the CE Manual.
I accept that he felt “part of the furniture “in Watergrasshill as he had served so long under the patronage of Mr S and had received warm testimonials from the service users.
However, I must make a decision based on employment law rather than a contended familiarity and omnipresence.
The Complainant is mistaken in his contention that he is employed by Watergrasshill Community Association.
I find that his correct employer is Glanmire Area Project CLG as in the conjoined case of ADJ 57863
He does not have the locus standi to proceed in his claims.
He has denied that he was subject of a transfer under TUPE Regulations.
CA-00070475 -001 Terms of Employment (Information Act)
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Notification of Change
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -003 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Core Terms
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -004 Terms of Employment (Information Act) request for predictable working
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475-010 Victimisation, Employment Equality Act.
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association.
I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 2 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475-011 Penalisation under Sick leave Act.
The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association.
I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 2 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue.
I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00069364-14 Transferee did not ensure terms and conditions transferred under TUPE Regulations
The Complainant could not identify an occurrence of TUPE. The Respondent disputed his claim to employment status.
Dismissal of claim by adjudication officer
- (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.
(2) (a) A person whose complaint or dispute is dismissed in accordance with this section may, not later than 42 days from its dismissal, appeal the dismissal to the Labour Court.
(b) A person shall, when bringing an appeal under this subsection, give notice to the Commission in writing of the bringing of the appeal.
(c) A notice referred to in paragraph (b) shall specify the grounds upon which the appeal is brought.
I find I must dismiss this claim as frivolous and vexatious in accordance with Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
I can see the claim arose from anger and frustration in the context of a change in governance, but I cannot identify facts which incorporate a transfer of undertakings in accordance with the 2003 Regulations.
CA-00069364-19 Transferor did not advise under TUPE Regulations
This claim is wrongly categorised in this file as it refers to Glanmire Area Project CLG as the Transferor.
The claim is not well founded.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under sections 3 and 5 of the Act.
CA-00070475 -001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Notification of Change The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -003 Terms of Employment (Information Act) Core Terms The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475 -004 Terms of Employment (Information Act) request for predictable working The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 1 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475-010 Victimisation Section 79 of the Employment Act, 1998 requires me to make a decision in accordance with Section 74 of that Act. The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrasshill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 2 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00070475-011 Penalisation under Sick leave Act. Section 14 of the Sick Leave Act, 2022 requires that I make a decision in this case. The complainant was not employed by the Respondent, Watergrass hill Community Association. I lack the jurisdiction to progress this claim as the complainant does not satisfy the Section 2 definition of employee under the Act. I find for the Respondent in this Preliminary Issue. I am unable to progress beyond this point.
CA-00069364-14 Transferee did not ensure terms and conditions transferred under TUPE Regulations I find I must dismiss this claim as frivolous and vexatious in accordance with Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. I can see the claim arose from anger and frustration in the context of a change in governance, but I cannot identify facts which incorporate a transfer of undertakings in accordance with the 2003 Regulations.
CA-00069364-19 Transferor did not advise me under TUPE Regulations This claim is wrongly categorised in this file as it refers to Glanmire Area Project CLG as the Transferor. The claim is not well founded.
|
Dated: 22nd June 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Mistaken identity of employer, Dismissal of Claims |